Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

[_Dr Moore]

Sheesh. No wonder Jackson goes for the jugular on Wayment as he does. It will be interesting to see how Jackson addresses the matter once Wayment releases all of the "hundreds" of instances of Clarke-borrowing he found with Wilson-Lemmon.

[_Kishkumen]

So the apologists are attacking Wayment’s scholarship in order to take away any potential for a slam dunk? This is an odd strategy indeed. If parallels don’t work then I’m afraid the entirety of the Interpreter’s corpus is null and void. I will have to go see how it is that Wayment’s 100s of instanced fail to “withstand scrutiny.”

Yes, parallels are only parallels when they help the cause.

[_Yahoo Bot]

As I posted on the other board, Jackson's piece is a piece of offal. I edited my post to take the "offal" comment out but others copied it.

It isn't really a comparison if all he does is paraphrase Clarke. Plus, Jackson just doesn't have the academic credentials. He taught in the Religion Department, with all that entails.

I have been roundly attacked for my comments on Jackson.

[_moksha]

As I posted on the other board, Jackson's piece is a piece of offal. I edited my post to take the "offal" comment out but others copied it.

It isn't really a comparison if all he does is paraphrase Clarke. Plus, Jackson just doesn't have the academic credentials. He taught in the Religion Department, with all that entails.

I have been roundly attacked for my comments on Jackson.

Many good people get attacked at the MDDB. Glad you try to keep them honest. Best wishes to you, Stem, Cinepro, Tacenda, and anyone else who aids in that effort. The Church benefits from honesty and wilts from LDS apologetics.

[Guest]

If Conference didn't do it for you, you might want to try https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... tnote60anc

Yeah...right! No way in hell did Joseph Smith consult Adam Clarke. That's all lies and foolish nonsense.

I may kid, but I admit, Jackson's little rebuttal turned out a little better than I thought. makes me feel like there is plenty more for folks to look into, if they are so inclined. My interest may be waning.

So, I read this, and it is as careful as one would expect of Kent P. Jackson, the guy who criticized Nibley for methodological fudging.

It looks to me like Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon may not have been as careful as they might have been, especially when one considers the predictable response from apologetic circles.

That said, I don't find a number of Jackson's quibbles all that persuasive. In a number of cases, Jackson rejects Clarke as an influence on Smith's translation decisions because Clarke did not explicitly recommend a change that Smith made. It is clear to me that Jackson has set the bar very high here, and he is not satisfied that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have surmounted it.

Fair enough. And, I am sure that more work will have to be done.

In my view, when we see a word Clarke uses in his commentary showing up in Smith's translation, Jackson has no good alternative explanation. Are we to imagine that this happens repeatedly by complete coincidence? Jackson is really saying that Smith did not consult Clarke?

No, I am sorry. This does not persuade. It does persuade that great care needs to be exercised in how this material is analyzed and described--there will be a Kent Jackson there to pick your account apart--but I am not persuaded that Smith did not look at Clarke. These cases, taken as a whole, seem too striking to be mere coincidences.

[_Kishkumen]

As I posted on the other board, Jackson's piece is a piece of offal. I edited my post to take the "offal" comment out but others copied it.

It isn't really a comparison if all he does is paraphrase Clarke. Plus, Jackson just doesn't have the academic credentials. He taught in the Religion Department, with all that entails.

I have been roundly attacked for my comments on Jackson.

I would love to read more of what you have to say, Bot. Why offal?

Is the fact that Jackson is not credentialed a reason to dismiss him? What did you think of his criticisms of Nibley?

[_moksha]

Even Dr. Peterson entered the fray in response to Crockett.

I'm a believer, and a former Bishop. I think Jackson's article about Clarke is both excellent and devastating. He's superbly trained. It was peer reviewed.

If nothing else, Allan Wyatt gave it a thumbs up.

Why offal?

The other word would have been censored at MDDB.

[_Fence Sitter]

I'm a believer, and a former Bishop. I think Jackson's article about Clarke is both excellent and devastating.

In other late breaking news, it has been discovered water is wet.

It was peer reviewed.

I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had peer reviewed it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I don't believe the concept of peer review applies to a devotional publication. Peer review involves secular and critical review.

I like the Interpreter and appreciate its output, but let's not pretend that secular social scientists rely upon it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Is the fact that Jackson is not credentialed a reason to dismiss him? What did you think of his criticisms of Nibley?

Nibley worked in academic departments. The Department of Religion is not an academic department. It uses as instructors people from the community with no credentials other than they are former mission presidents. There are other problems.

I don't criticize that fact. But If you're going to be considered a serious author of Coptic anthropology you ought not be working in a university's PR department.